Young Christians' Attitudes Toward Atheism

[midwinter]

I'm putting this in PO because, frankly, I think that this is really a political issue.

I was teaching a class today where we were assembling a bunch of ideas about Western metaphysics. Nothing heavy (it's a Freshman class), but we were pretty broad-ranging in our discussion (psychology, some astrophysics, psychology, natural science, etc.), but we were talking about the way that underpinning most of Western thought is the idea that there must be meaning, there must be order, there must be some kind of system that, even though we cannot see it, we believe that it must be there.

Over the course of the discussion, one of my students said something like this:

"Well, if there is no God, then there's no reason to follow any laws. People would just kill one another and do whatever they want."

I'm interested in hearing from the religious folks on the board—particularly the Christians, and even more particularly, the evangelical Christians—about where young kids (18-ish) get these ideas about atheism. I'm honestly not interested in a debate about the merits of Theism/Atheism. I'm just curious about whether or not such ideas are articulated in sermons or sunday schools, or whether this is just the logic of 18 year-old LDS kids.

I'm just trying to understand my students, not convert them to anything or attack their beliefs.

Cheers
Scott

[JimDreamworx]

Following laws of a society and whether there is a God is exclusive.

Society passes all sorts of crazy laws that have nothing do with religion.

Sounds like these kids confuse The Law (of the Bible) with the law (which is an ass). My two cents.

[MarcUK]

Seems to me that people who think like that would be the really nasty bastards of life if they didn't have the threat of God hanging over their necks that they can't escape from.

You don't have to look far to see that many people professing a profound belief in Christianity are the most hateful, deceitful, obnoxious, uncompassionate, intolerant, scheming compulsive liars you are likely to meet.

Of course, this is paralleled in all religions and agnostics and athiests alike, but you have to wonder, the people who claim to have been touched by the love of Jesus, but who still act like the worst sinners, - they don't understand the message at all - just acting out a fantasy that they believe will make God happy, and thus reward them. Selfish to the bone - and millions believe they are going to heaven - but when the time comes, God will have no memory of them.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm putting this in PO because, frankly, I think that this is really a political issue.

I was teaching a class today where we were assembling a bunch of ideas about Western metaphysics. Nothing heavy (it's a Freshman class), but we were pretty broad-ranging in our discussion (psychology, some astrophysics, psychology, natural science, etc.), but we were talking about the way that underpinning most of Western thought is the idea that there must be meaning, there must be order, there must be some kind of system that, even though we cannot see it, we believe that it must be there.

Over the course of the discussion, one of my students said something like this:

"Well, if there is no God, then there's no reason to follow any laws. People would just kill one another and do whatever they want."

I'm interested in hearing from the religious folks on the board—particularly the Christians, and even more particularly, the evangelical Christians—about where young kids (18-ish) get these ideas about atheism. I'm honestly not interested in a debate about the merits of Theism/Atheism. I'm just curious about whether or not such ideas are articulated in sermons or sunday schools, or whether this is just the logic of 18 year-old LDS kids.

I'm just trying to understand my students, not convert them to anything or attack their beliefs.

Cheers
Scott

If I were to take a guess, and I'm a pretty good guesser, I would say that it would have to do with the fact that a purely naturalistic world has no inherit meaning or purpose to it. It exists pretty much as an accident.

If you hold that the universe is a naturalistic event, and that it then it somehow sprang into existance from the big bang. The reasoning as to the WHY of this is impossible to explain from a naturalistic perspective. If there is a creator, it was created and came forth with a purpose as designated from that creator. If not then it is nothing more than a purposeless event. The why can never be explained. You can't assign meaning to something that was causeless.

We can move forward to earth or humans directly. A religious view holds that humans were created, often with a purpose given to them by their creator. The naturalistic view holds that we exist basically because amino acids banged together in the right configuration within a primordial soup. The second view holds that we all exist either because of an accident, or because the rather high odds that this event would happen were met.

So, at least from the religious perspective, the view of pure naturalism is that the universe has a beginning and that there was no cause and thus no meaning to assign to it. The creation of life on this planet is nothing more than the odds playing themselves out.

It is pretty much impossible to assign meaning or order within this view. You can attempt to do so, but it is basically deluding yourself.

Now we try to do so and that is the sort of bastard child that occured when humanism and enlightenment thought came out of religious thinking. But the reality is that we humans are no different than say bacteria on a cosmic scale. If your cat decides to swat into your fish tank and kill your gold fish, there isn't any "meaning" assigned to it. The order is nothing more than instinct.

Humans have assigned themselves these delusional ideals. They even conveniently assign themselves to the top of a biological hiearchy when it is clear that other organisms are much more "fit", numerous and would more easily survive a change within our world. The whole concept of hiearchy is nonsense. We are no different than bacteria or worms. Life itself is nothing more than a means to help energy reach a lower state more quickly.

Now within this view, any law that works against natural law can attempt to assign meaning and order, but really is nothing more than a delusion. I've hit on this a few times myself mentioning the "fitness" of societies from an evolutionary standpoint. We can argue rights, etc. but in the end, the only law that matters is natural law. Ideals cannot be transmitted biologically. This has been the basis of some Pat Buchanan stuff. If my ideals treat my wife and children more just or correct in the western view but myself, my wife and my children are killed or even just outcompeted by say, the ideal that a man ought to have five wives who birth seven children a piece, then the "fit" ideal is the one that simply survives and continues to reproduce.

That is a decent start, but I'm a bit tired from my own reading related to the classes I'm taking. I hope that made some sense.

Nick

[MarcUK]

its the product of psychological brainwashing that convinces people that if you abandon beliefs in fairy tales that your life is worthless. Most people couldn't cope with this.

The fact that I, and millions of others can have meaning in my life, knowing that in the big picture there is no point other than returning the universe to equilibrium, means that I might have progressed spiritually more than you.

What's the point in being alive if your purpose is to worship a myth for the small chance that you chose the right myth for the even smaller chance that you get rewarded at the end? No doubt you would all commit suicide if it wasn't for the small problem that the doctors of this lie realised that would cause problems, so they made it a sin.

People who hate life, people, the earth and the universe chose religion because it is that warm fuzzy feeling they get that makes all the evil go away and makes life bearable to them.

[midwinter]

Guys, please.

I'm interested in whether or not there is a slippery slope argument (like the one Nick suggested) that's floating around in some kind of formal fashion.

[dmz]

The answer you got was the generic, plane-jane, stock answer when approaching Atheism -- it's given to children/young adults in most of the Churches I've attended. It's based on the very simplistic notion that Atheism in general is internally consistent, and is as usefull as it is accurate in describing the post modern approach life, facts, etc.

My several children will not be given this sort of crap response. A rigorous study of world religions/history coupled with an equally rigorous study of Christian apologetics has, I am happy to report, already underway.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
The answer you got was the generic, plane-jane, stock answer when approaching Atheism -- it's given to children/young adults in most of the Churches I've attended. It's based on the very simplistic notion that Atheism in general is internally consistent, and is as usefull as it is accurate in describing the post modern approach life, facts, etc.

My several children will not be given this sort of crap response. A rigorous study of world religions/history coupled with an equally rigorous study of Christian apologetics has, I am happy to report, already underway.

dont forget to make them equally study Islamic apologetics, Hindu apologetics, Sikh apologetics, and don't skimp on the evidence that shows Jesus' life is the story of sun whizzing around the zodiac.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
dont forget to make them equally study Islamic apologetics, Hindu apologetics, Sikh apologetics, and don't skimp on the evidence that shows Jesus' life is the story of sun whizzing around the zodiac.


I will give that suggestion all the attention it deserves.:p

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
I will give that suggestion all the attention it deserves.:p

starting tomorow then?

[dmz]

SUCH a funny guy.



Clarification on the 'crap answer" thing.

It's not that the answer you got is not 'true' (in a very nitwit sort of way) it's that I''ve never met an "athiest" who wasn't really practicing dilecticism, maybe the crime is that they aren't being educated to speak 'intelligbly' -- or pertinently -- to the actual issues of the day.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
SUCH a funny guy.



Clarification on the 'crap answer" thing.

It's not that the answer you got is not 'true' (in a very nitwit sort of way) it's that I''ve never met an "athiest" who wasn't really practicing dilecticism, maybe the crime is that they aren't being educated to speak 'intelligbly' -- or pertinently -- to the actual issues of the day.

Huh?

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
SUCH a funny guy.



Clarification on the 'crap answer" thing.

It's not that the answer you got is not 'true' (in a very nitwit sort of way) it's that I''ve never met an "athiest" who wasn't really practicing dilecticism, maybe the crime is that they aren't being educated to speak 'intelligbly' -- or pertinently -- to the actual issues of the day.

did you mean Didacticism?

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
Huh?


Just that the answer you got about Athiesm, is essentially true, but as 'worthless as tits on a boar hog', because generally spealing atheists hold a sort of tension in the solution to the One-Many question.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
did you mean Didacticism?


now that is funny -- a bunch of Didactic Atheists.

:lol: :lol:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
Just that the answer you got about Athiesm, is essentially true, but as 'worthless as tits on a boar hog', because generally spealing atheists hold a sort of tension in the solution to the One-Many question.

You're going to have to say what you mean. I ain't following.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
now that is funny -- a bunch of Didactic Atheists.

:lol: :lol:

Before you laugh too long, you might want to look up "didactic." I do not think it means what you think it means™.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
now that is funny -- a bunch of Didactic Atheists.

:lol: :lol:

ok, i looked up your word on dictionary, it wasn't there. What does it mean?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by MarcUK
ok, i looked up your word on dictionary, it wasn't there. What does it mean?

I think DMZ means something with regard to Hegelian dialectics, but I'm not sure where he's (?) headed with it.

[dmz]

I thought it basically meant ' having a teaching quality'.

fantastic pun!


It's just when that student mentioned "why not do whatever we want", it is true in theory, but due to the nature of God in all of us -- or whatever you think gives people a moral sense, hardly any atheists ever actually do that -- they hold the idea that 'no one is watching' in tension with social needs or whatever else drives them.


Working late. bye.

[MarcUK]

so you're taking this down the road of, only the bible contains the absolute laws.

So you're saying that a bunch of 2000 year old propaganda, is a better foundation for law, than what we could think of today.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
I thought it basically meant ' having a teaching quality'.

fantastic pun!

I still don't get it, and I'm an atheist who teaches. :???:


It's just when that student mentioned "why not do whatever we want", it is true in theory, but due to the nature of God in all of us -- or whatever you think gives people a moral sense, hardly any atheists ever actually do that -- they hold the idea that 'no one is watching' in tension with social needs or whatever else drives them.


Working late. bye.

And see, you've just made the same argument, in essence. It's a bizarre argument, since it assumes that the only reason I don't go bashing people in the head is because of some godliness in me, rather than a clear sense that it is not in my best interests to do so.

I want to know where on earth people get this.

[MarcUK]

Its the product of psychological brainwashing that convinces people that if you abandon beliefs in fairy tales that your life is worthless. Most people couldn't cope with this.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Its the product of psychological brainwashing that convinces people that if you abandon beliefs in fairy tales that your life is worthless. Most people couldn't cope with this.

Mark: I fucking get that, already. I'm an atheist. I want to know why it is that I consistently get the same argument from kids of the same age. It seems like it's floating around in the churches, which, as DMZ has indicated, is accurate.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by midwinter
Mark: I fucking get that, already. I'm an atheist. I want to know why it is that I consistently get the same argument from kids of the same age. It seems like it's floating around in the churches, which, as DMZ has indicated, is accurate.

chill dude:smokey: , that IS why you consistantly get the same answer from kids the same age. It IS the mechanism the church uses to keep the flock. Its no secret that beliefs formed during childhood are very unlikely to be overturned by education in later life. What better way to keep the flock, if they grow up believing that they are utterly worthless if they question the authority. Install guilt and worthlessness in early life, and you have a convert for life.

Why d'ya think DMZ is homeschooling his kids? Why do religious schools exist? Why do they try to get 'em young?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by MarcUK
chill dude:smokey: , that IS why you consistantly get the same answer from kids the same age. It IS the mechanism the church uses to keep the flock. Its no secret that beliefs formed during childhood are very unlikely to be overturned by education in later life. What better way to keep the flock, if they grow up believing that they are utterly worthless if they question the authority. Install guilt and worthlessness in early life, and you have a convert for life.

Why d'ya think DMZ is homeschooling his kids? Why do religious schools exist? Why do they try to get 'em young?

I still don't think you understand that I get that. I'm asking an entirely different question.

[Wrong Robot]

I'm an atheist that believes, for the most part, in the teachings of jesus, though I, for the most part, despise the bible, I think that jesus(be he real or not, be he an icon for sun worship or not) said some things that if people actually paid attention to and followed we'd probably be a lot better off.

I also believe in the teachings of gandhi, and I think obi wan kenobi was a cool guy too. But mostly I believe in myself and not needing other people telling me what and how to believe.(in anything)

I've gotten a wide variety of responses from people when I tell them I'm atheistic, but for the purposes of this thread, I'll note a particularly amusing one I got recently.

me: "well, my notion of 'god' is very unconventional, in that I don't believe in any singular supreme being, that's folly, the closest thing I have to a 'god' is "all that is".

young christian(15 year old): "What? you must be like, the dumbest person on the planet, of course there's a god, dumbass, and ur going to hell"

me: "Hell doesn't exist, neither does heaven"

kid: "Then where do people go when they die"

me: the dirt.

kid: lol, u fag, ur to gay to be christian


So, the only real thing this adds to the discussion is plenty of fodder for someone to quote and zing me with, so have at it you hosers.

:lol:

[MarcUK]

I know you get it, you asked this question.

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm just curious about whether or not such ideas are articulated in sermons or sunday schools, or whether this is just the logic of 18 year-old LDS kids.


I'm just trying to explain that this is not just an idea that is banded about once a year in a random church in Kansas. It is the fundamental mechanism that exists in almost every church since 300A.D to install guilt and worthlessness in the flock so that they don't stray when they realise its all a bunch of crock.

[BRussell]

I doubt if it's some kind of memo going around. It just sounds like a natural argument if you're religious.

[hardeeharhar]

dmz isn't able to cope with thoughts that god doesn't exist. He simply cannot do it. Everything he thinks is centered on the implicit assumption that god exists. If we were to ask him to pretend that god didn't exist and tell him to approach the problem of an atheists ethical code (since morals are not the right word), he wouldn't put himself in the seat of the atheist walking down the street and seeing a woman getting mugged. He would put himself in his own chair and find god again, thereby making the entire exercise futile.

The student in your class, however, is capable of making the switch to a world in which god doesn't exist, and he should be applauded for that ability, while at the same time questioned on why might an atheist not bash the skull in of his next door neighbor or say spray sulfuric acid on a labmate's bicycle (bitchy research tech) -- most of the time, if his christian training has been effective he will give the response that dmz here is giving -- that god really does exist and thus atheists are not able to escape that godliness. He is unable, by training, on the balance to suggest a reason that doesn't involve god. This may not be a systematic claim that godlessness equals unethical behaviors but rather that the christian system of intellect cannot deny god and find a naturalistic (to use dmz's turn) reason for ethical atheists.

The solution, if you care to take it, is to encourage these students to look at the moral flexibility of the church, themselves, and think about whether atheist have similar flexibility but clearly defined ethical values (versus moral values)...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
I doubt if it's some kind of memo going around. It just sounds like a natural argument if you're religious.

It's not that I think there's a memo going around. But arguments, like memes and viruses, make their way around.

[Frank777]

God doesn't believe in Atheists.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Frank777
God doesn't believe in Atheists.

No. God doesn't believe in you, Frank777 of Toronto, Canada. Eh, eh?

What, is this thing on?

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by Frank777
God doesn't believe in Atheists.

Of course not, God doesn't exist.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Guys, please.

I'm interested in whether or not there is a slippery slope argument (like the one Nick suggested) that's floating around in some kind of formal fashion.

I hate to break this to you, but suggesting that people only follow naturalistic reasoning to a point isn't a slippery slope. The reality is that "meaning and order" is just as much a humanistic religion as an theological one. The various humanist crusades undertaken by the likes of Mao, and Stalin are no different than the religious ones in my book.

People who don't care to believe that we all become worm food and that their life is of no consequence turn to religion and are called delusional for denying the reality of their existance.

Why is this any different for humanists who claim that "reason and order" will somehow give an answer or meaning to the same set of circumstances?

In a truly 100% naturalistic sense, all life does is allow energy to get to an lower state more quickly. There is no meaning to it. That doesn't mean you have to go around bashing people on the head, but it also doesn't mean that when you don't there is some special cosmic significance to it. When one ant bites the head off another ant, we don't ponder the cosmic ramifications of it. Do you seriously think that humanity and all their energies would amount to even an ant colony in the cosmic scheme?

Let me ask you Mid, why are we so special? We aren't the biggest mammals. We aren't the longest living creatures on our own planet by any stretch. As mammals we are horribly inefficient in terms of energy use. What is so special about us? We think we are and thus we must be? Nonsense.

Originally posted by midwinter
I still don't get it, and I'm an atheist who teaches. :???:
And see, you've just made the same argument, in essence. It's a bizarre argument, since it assumes that the only reason I don't go bashing people in the head is because of some godliness in me, rather than a clear sense that it is not in my best interests to do so.

I want to know where on earth people get this.

You don't go around doing these things because in part you have been indoctrinated by society, specifically western society to see them as bad. However there are societies where you might marry and care for your brother's wife if he were to be killed. There are other societies where you might sell your own children into slavery or an arranged marriage and not really think as much of it. When you look back at human history the modern western norms are not nearly so obviously or present. They still are not in most of the world. There are plenty of times, even in western culture where murder was much more common.

Nick

[Frank777]

Okay...:err:

The above was simply meant as a joke (albeit an old one.) Didn't mean to rattle anyone's cage.

I just got home and just briefly skimmed the thread.

My brain's too fried to type a really coherent response (particularly since Midwinter especially looking out for the 'Evangelical' perspective - that's a lot of pressure! :D )

Hope you don't mind MW, but I'll be back tomorrow.

[Chris Cuilla]

The foundation of this thinking is along the lines of what Nick has said.

Briefly, Christians believe that there are moral absolutes that come from God. These are considered to be the basis of law (even the societal and cultural laws...not just biblical laws). The basis of right and wrong.

Now, if there is no God (as the atheist believes), there must be some other source for these things. But what? Absent God (a creator larger and outside of us)...it seems that the atheist would accept only naturalistic explanations of the world, universe, mankind, origins, etc. If this is so, what is the source of any morality? Where does it come from? Does it just "happen"? Now certainly atheists don't believe that there is no right and wrong. They must believe in these...their lives (all of our lives) depend on the assumption of their existence. Perhaps we all just fail to agree on what they are and where they come from.

This is the crux of it. I think I have only re-stated what Nick was saying. Perhaps better. Perhaps worse.

The students are perhaps expressing this idea too simplistically, but the foundation of what they are is at least a valid question/challenge/debate.

It is really the following questions:

1. Is there such things as absolute "right" and absolute "wrong"?

2. If so, what things are absolutely right or wrong?

3. What is the source of these things?

Christians believe:

1. Yes.

2. Whatever the complete list it hang on these two:
- Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength.
- Love your neighbor as yourself.

3. God (revealed through the Bible).

So these folks are assuming the following about athesists:

1. No.

No need to answer 2 & 3 at that point.

midwinter, you are an atheist, can you offer your position on these? Or are there additional questions? Alternative questions?

( of course to can decline...because that really wasn't the goal of your thread...i've tried to provide some insight into the thinking you were asking about )

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by trumptman
In a truly 100% naturalistic sense, all life does is allow energy to get to an lower state more quickly.

Nick,
This isn't correct. Life doesn't allow systems to get to a lower energy state more quickly. In fact, it practically goes out of its way to slow the progress towards a ground state. What would be more accurate is all life does is increase the disorder of its environment more quickly than it would if life didn't exist.

Ground state + life = death.
Slow flux + life = life.
Fast flux + life = fire = death.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nick,
This isn't correct. Life doesn't allow systems to get to a lower energy state more quickly. In fact, it practically goes out of its way to slow the progress towards a ground state. What would be more accurate is all life does is increase the disorder of its environment more quickly than it would if life didn't exist.

Ground state + life = death.
Slow flux + life = life.
Fast flux + life = fire = death.

I think if you take life meaning the universe, then that stars form, die, reform, die, etc, then the universe will reach a ground state quicker than if you just equally distributed the mass of the universe uniformly in its volume, and waited for natural radioactive decay. Life as we know it is just a very small contribution to the transformation of energy.

[hardeeharhar]

Atheists come in different flavors. I can only speak from my perspective which is one based on rational explanations of things (and the admission that knowledge can and will always be lacking in areas).

Moral rules which society is "founded" upon are common to all peoples give or take. This indicates to me that these are due to some pressure towards these rules, either by selecting instinctual behaviors during the course of our species evolution or by temporal social selection of social rules. There is far more basis in the latter than the former -- that is the "hard and fast" rules found in the bible really aren't found everywhere and glossing over these rules as if they were would be missing the point, and secondly, since I am a scientist, there are social groups of apes who experienced devastating population destruction that killed the most aggressive males and as the less aggressive males took over the clans lost their aggressive tendencies. While it would appear from the outset that this is a genetic factor, these same groups, which receive their males from neighboring groups where aggression is still common, tend to pacify them, indicating that the social order around the females is stuck so to speak on the passive ideal. This may be an interplay of genetics and social selection, or just social selection, but it certainly isn't all genetic.

You can envision a similar development of our common social rules.

There are also a great deal of moral "truths" that christians suggest come from god, which can also arise from ethical discussions -- in fact all can probably.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I think if you take life meaning the universe, then that stars form, die, reform, die, etc, then the universe will reach a ground state quicker than if you just equally distributed the mass of the universe uniformly in its volume, and waited for natural radioactive decay. Life as we know it is just a very small contribution to the transformation of energy.

I know that isn't true because there exist forces between particles.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
midwinter, you are an atheist, can you offer your position on these? Or are there additional questions? Alternative questions?

( of course to can decline...because that really wasn't the goal of your thread...i've tried to provide some insight into the thinking you were asking about ) [/B]

Chris: I understand the Christian position. I have my 5 year Baptist sunday school attendance pin. I never missed a day.

My personal position tends to be that most of the "morals" that we have inherited are essentially codifications of rules that help us survive. These rules are, of course, historically determined, and so they change over time...so, for instance, you need to stone people for wearing cloths of two different kind at one point, but that's apparently OK now. Ditto sowing two different crops side by side. Ditto man not laying with man as he does with woman.

Oh, wait. ;)

My point, though, is that I want to know whether or not in sunday school classes or sermons or whatnot, these kind of arguments get advanced on a more or less regular basis.

Make sense?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
My point, though, is that I want to know whether or not in sunday school classes or sermons or whatnot, these kind of arguments get advanced on a more or less regular basis.

Make sense?

Right, I get what you are looking for. I've done all that I can do to offer any insight. Sorry if it doesn't help.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I know that isn't true because there exist forces between particles.

and these forces allow the universe to reach a ground state quicker than if there were no forces.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by MarcUK
and these forces allow the universe to reach a ground state quicker than if there were no forces.

So God is the forces.

What up wit you UK?

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
So God is the forces.

What up wit you UK?

I don't think I implied that, but that is essentially what I believe about the nature of God if God exists. ofcourse, that is my belief, and not evidenced by any fact, and it doesn't invalidate any branch of science whatsoever.

[pfflam]

The morals that run through a culture are the hardened shells of pragmatic decisions that, over a period of a long long time became generalized rules .
Plus
they are also those prohibitions placed on a polulace by a caste of charismatic rullers who had the smarts to govern as well as control the surplus that allowed culture to crystalize
Plus
Morals are the efemeral and infinitely delicate wonder that arises when facing the depth of absolute Otherness in others . . . and otherness that also reflects the otherness of ourselves to ourselves . . .also known as Compassion and Love . . . it is our only a priori *. . . but it is situational . . . though constant and very easily overlooked

Also, I think that noone is really an athiest: I think that it would take a person a constant struggle to fight with the tendency to take concepts towards a unifying totality . . . all judgements want to move towards an abstract state of being correct . . . I think that a correlative and real part of that is that we believe in god: an organizor/force etc that renders order that confers truth: the Name Of the Father . .. the Lacanian Other etc etc

This whole, "we can't live in a society without god" is a product of the general Social-politcal Conservatism: it is a major tenant of NeoConservative political thought that we need to have a binding myth (but i've said too much about that in other threads)
But it is a major tenant of SocialConservatives that we need to have a structured disciplined moral culture or we're going to end up like Soddom . . . I mean, San Francisco


Its weird because they seem to believe that more than half the world needs to be 'Saved' by their 'Word,'
but then, they also believe that that half of the world simply can't be living in the relatively stable state that they seem to be living in without the Word that they haven't yet given to them . . .
. .
Gee . . . shouldn't they have allready killed each other off then?!?!?


anyway . . . I believe that it is almost a moral duty to try and be an athiest . . . it is almost a God-given duty to try and achieve a state of mind that is without the conscious or unconscious appeal to an idea of god . . .
Once that emptiness is achieved then perhaps real love, real otherness can be experienced . . .

Hmm?!?!?! just ramblin here . . .




* - (besides the empty forms of intutions: time and space and the Kantian categories of experience)

[segovius]

Originally posted by midwinter
It's not that I think there's a memo going around. But arguments, like memes and viruses, make their way around.

I don't personally believe this is the reason.

ANd it isn't just confined to Christianity, I remember having this similar argument a few years back with a fundie (semi-radicalised) Muslim and a moderate Muslim - both of whom I knew very well.

The fundie said that if there were no rigid laws then people would do all the things the laws were designed to prevent, that was the purpose of them. When pressed he claimed that if it were not illegal he would himself kill and steal. I believe him.

Interestingly, he also said that if there were no Holy Books then he would not believe in God and that God could not be deduced from any other means - ie the world is so bad it tends to the conclusion there is not God. Only the Scriptures prove this.

The moderate and I held the position that Scripture was irrelevant - we would postulate a God without it, and further, that if they repealed the law tomorrow then we would not just go and kill someone (well, maybe but that's political :D ) for the sake of it.

From this (and also from equivalences with Christian fundies I have known - just want to broaden the canvas by not just focussing on them) I conclude that such people are essentially atheists and moreover, that they do not represent the whole of any given religion and also that this is not a new phenomena - it has been about since the dawn of these faiths.

It's like MarcUK said above - these people [i]would[/b] be doing all these things if not for the religious law and fear of hell/desire for heaven.

They are incapable of seeing God in nature or anywhere else 'in the wild' (as too are atheists) and hence have to resort to literalism and metaphysical/theological argument.

Their argument is just less sophisticated than the atheist's and more reductionist - that's all. And they have less humanitarian concern, compassion and often, strangely, less Christian values.

[SpcMs]

If you could put a bunch of 'unspoiled' people together and let them stew for a few generations, you would get exactly what you have today. You would get groups that are out to kill each other, but within each group 'equals' would treat each other very much alike (respect your neighbour) and each group would claim some higher moral authority, and every group would believe that when others adjusted to their system everything would be better.
So you would get 'right' and 'wrong' and 'God' and 'morality' rather quickly without having to teach it, but it doesn't mean much more than who gets to feed first in a horde of wolfs.

The silly thing is, almost everybody realizes this. If you ask a christian whether he would be muslim if he was born in Saudi-Arabia, almost all recognize they would, and yet for some (and for human nature apparently) is seems soo hard to take the next logical step.

[groverat]

Midwinter:

In an attempt to answer your question let me give you my perspective as a former LDS church member (and a very active and fervent one at that, for a time).

Inherent to any strong Christian belief (Mormonism, evangelical frameworks) is a very real and deep sense of exclusivity. That's all there is to it and you don't need to think of it

Further, because God exists (to them), it is impossible to think that there is not God, the only other choice is Satan. So if you're an Atheist you are simply under Satan's sway.

And Satan is evil, so that is why, in their minds, if you have not accepted Christ you have accepted Satan so you shouldn't have any moral objection to bashing people's skulls in.

So essentially what happens is that they do not understand a mindset that views the world has having moral truth without God, without someone laying down a specific rule. The fact that this can survive even though morality shifts around them like a fluid should tell you all you need to know about how it spreads and becomes the universal belief of Christians.

pfflam:

That post is absolute money. The first sentence is truth condensed.

[THT]

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm interested in hearing from the religious folks on the board—particularly the Christians, and even more particularly, the evangelical Christians—about where young kids (18-ish) get these ideas about atheism.

Most of the answers posted are generally too deep or thought out to come from a teenager. I think it's just adolescent logic, a skin-deep understanding of the world, much like what groverat said. God is order, law and morals. No god means nor order, no law and no morals.

As far as how this gets into them, this is a 90% religious, predominately Christian, nation. They don't even have to go to Sunday school to get such an understanding of the world. It also should hold generally true for all religions, at least to a varying degree. Be interesting to here what youths of other religions say.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I don't think I implied that, but that is essentially what I believe about the nature of God if God exists. ofcourse, that is my belief, and not evidenced by any fact, and it doesn't invalidate any branch of science whatsoever.

Actually, I could have said: huh? the forces exist because they well exist, if they didn't exist it wouldn't be this universe.

But I could see where that was going so I jumped ahead.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, I could have said: huh? the forces exist because they well exist, if they didn't exist it wouldn't be this universe.

But I could see where that was going so I jumped ahead.

that's fine, thats what I think as well.

[pfflam]

Groverat

Golly . . . thanks

also I think that you pinpointed the either/or root of that way of thinking: if you don't have Milk . . . I mean Jesus . .. then you have to have Satan . .. since that's the way the world crumbles . . .


Everybody

What I am saying with my threeform nottion of the origins of Morals: the fact that they basically step from either ancient pragmatics, adherence to rulers or face-to-face encounters is this:

Morals are NOT pre-existing except as historically conditioned givens
And/Or
as a sensitivity to otherness as reflections of one's-self

Therefor it is almost a form of evolution for a culture to arrive at the point where they understand the conditional nature of morals AND THEN be able to found a system of morals based on nothing but creative reflection tempered by compassion and love . . .
In other words,to outgrow the dependancy on a given moral system . .

I think someone above said it very well segovius when they noted how a morality that says that it depends on a set of rules is in fact not in itself moral at all.


So, --even though I am a thiest of a variously ephemeral and pantheistic/mystic/absurdist/existentialist/ sort- to ground a moral system in a systematic "athiesm", with an eye towards respect and consideration for otherness, would be the highest form of culture (IMO): a morality that traverses through Nihilism and can then come to recognize the suffering/joyous nature of Otherness . . . good stuff . . . just getting things going in the creative direction of real possibilities . . .


I guess the key to my understanding is that when we come face to face with others (or otherness through an other) we are momentarily shocked/ disturbed in such a way as to have our historical/conditional givens be rent from us for but a moment: and then the mystery of infinite-being is given as some kind of possibility for thought . . . we momentarily recognize the impossibility of truly acknowledging the world of the other's experience . . . which also includes our experience encountered in the same manner . . .
If we are sensitive to this moment, then we can accept that moment of experience as a kind of responsibility . . . a responsibility that says: "look at how infinitely more profound and complex this other is, more so than you first thought"
And of course, the Big Otherness is also implicated, constantly . . . but I'm not sensitive enough to notice . . . when I'm not on drugs that is ;)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by pfflam
Morals are NOT pre-existing except as historically conditioned givens
And/Or
as a sensitivity to otherness as reflections of one's-self

But this is absolutely correct.

I'd like to suggest that the 'historically-conditioned givens' that have bequeathed us 'morals' come from a time in our deep history when things like gift giving and food sharing were economically essential to our survival in inhospitable environments (as they still were in parts of Southern Africa until the beginning of the 1900s and Australia until later than that.)

If you fight and don't share food trying to survive in a desert, you will die. You can't expend the calories and you can't afford to fall out with people on whom your survival might depend. I think that the development of 'manners' is as bound up in our evolutionary history as the development of language, and that is why a sense of 'morals' are one of the defining attributes of our species.

Oh, and god.

I'd also like to suggest, since it's on topic, that a sense of the spiritual was equally as essential to our survival. There are no hunter-gatherer atheists since their rituals and beliefs work: they help to keep people alive. The theory I like is that a sense of the spiritual, expressed in ritual practice, is an effective way of drawing together all kinds of diverse, miniscule bits of information offered to you by your environment and is a very powerful decision making tool.

The reason that those who believe are so unshakeable in their ideas you could say 'they believe as though their lives depended on it' is because once upon a time it actually did.

Understanding this you can commit to being a moral person without any recourse to being religious, if that's what you choose. You're a human being behaving like a human being.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
dmz isn't able to cope with thoughts that god doesn't exist. He simply cannot do it. Everything he thinks is centered on the implicit assumption that god exists.

Good point and I will agree that I fall into this situation where by I "see" the world in a context of God existing and as creator of all creation. I would add that there are those who choose not to "see" the world in a context where by God does exist combined with the idea of creation being created by God. The difference between these two perspectives is vast and I know that many try to find the "best fit" philosophy which resonates with their views and preferences in life. Based on what "fits" most near to the core "values" of the individual a world outlook is perceived accordingly.

A subject which I find most interesting and worth exploration is the subject of TRUST as experienced wholly via "faith" or "love" or violated and missing manifesting forms of "fear" "hate" and "revenge". This focus on trust is something which now guides my daily life. I would suggest that we must all "manage trust". This is not dissimilar to risktaking. The key is "managing" trust in a wise way. For each individual this will take shape differently depending on life experiences. Judgement comes into play at this point and we decide to (or not to) trust and what to trust. Based on how we manage our decisions to trust (or not) given entity and when, why, how and where we learn and grow in our wisdom and understanding.

When you trust someone you "give" them freedom to be a blessing. You give them opportunity to "deliver" opportunity to "be faithful" opportunity to "love".

Trusting is loving:
Loved people are faithful. I believe love is given by God and we either share in it or we squander it.

Like teaching a small child "guidance" is sometimes needed before we turn over our trust. We would not allow our child to stick their finger in an electrical outlet hence we provide guidance against such action but ultimately we have to trust the child to make decisions when growing and grown.

I notice in my life when I trust people I share a mutual respect which is very strong. I happen to understand that in order to trust others I must allow them to actually demonstrate their trustworthiness. This requires that I let go and "allow" them to be. Anything less takes away freedom and imposes control.

Love others, Trust them. If they are not ready to be trusted guide them with love. Then trust them.

So much hate in the world stems from distrust.

Fellowship

[pfflam]

Awesome post Fellows!!

You bring up a very important point.

I have been thinking a lot lately about my theology . . . I am a thiest . . . and that probably surpirises a lot of you, because I like to make fun of religion . . but an esential part of my idea is the primacy of trust.

The way that you talk about it is poetic and beautiful . . . and I agree with everything that you say

(--pardon me if I 'go off' below . ..Im just thinking as much as I can about this here--)

But what I mean by trust is this: I don't 'believe' in God . . . if I did I would know allready what to expect, I would have a foundation that is closed, I could not then have Faith.

I have, what I call, 'faith' . . . and what I mean by faith is merely an openness . . . I happen to think that all that is beyond my comprehension is as it should be: God is perfect, or at least I trust that it is.

Everything that is, must be an aspect of the universe(God) . . . a universe that is perfect: the Universe is thus innocent, --I trust that it is such, and I accept that innocence as a gift given to our understanding from the perfection of God . . . .

All of this gets tricky because there is no foundation in this for any sort of Moral system except openness . . . particularly openness for the being of others . .
Specially problematic because it means that EVERYTHING is perfect . . . everything is allready part of this happening called God, so no one thing is any better, ultimately, than any other.
Unless some things reflect the totality of all that is better than other things: sentient creatures, for instance . .

Which then means that there are two modes of being for us humans:
1- Being from the perspective of God: all is perfect, we have no choice about it, that the way it is -do what thou wilt, it doesn't much matter
And,
2- we have the world of our experience, where we can not help but make decisions and live as if free-will were a reality . . . for within our experience, it really is: The previous state of being, the perfection of God, becomes merely an article of faith . . . as it is . . . and, from within the world of experience, it might as well not have a referent (something that we can point to) since there is nothing that we can actually point to that is distinct from anything else (ie: is not part of the perfection) . .
So, in my perspective, you might as well be an athiest . . . it is close to the same thing . .. as long as you have faith and trust . . . .

All this means that should I want to align myself more with a 'spiritual' aspect, there is no God-given compulsion to do so, in terms of 'thou needst to be good'
If I do so, it is merely out of openess to that which is: it would not be God given -in the sense of rules- but would be God given in the sense that all is given by God.
any other motivation on my part would be selfish . . . (not that that would matter ultimately, just that selfish motivations misplace the guidance of all that is onto the self and away from the perfection of all that is
Which, again is no problem . . . there are no problems ultimately, except that if I see only selfish motivations then I don't allow seeing to see perfection).

Ultimately my theology is nihilistic . . . except that I have faith that all is good. . . it is nihilistic on porpose, any given meaning is not from the perspective of the ultimate

Love comes into this . . . I think that it is what bridges the held-in-faith perspective and the world of human decisions: because love is relationship and it is where we see reflection and therefor, the scope of the universe . . . it is primordial and immediate and can shake us up . . . and is all about allowing, as you Fellowship, say: letting the world be perfect . . . to me that is the ultimate love . . . and it too is faith . . .

I read somewhere that Kafka said something like 'you have to let the whole corpse go' . . . by which I understood: you have to give it all over, everything . . . that is trust to me . .. It was all given to me and all that I can do is allow it to be given.

that sort of sums up my current theological notion of meaninglessness: give it all over to God, everything . . truth, purpose, meaning and especially selfish demands to be 'saved' . . . that's not my domain . . . I'll just trust that all is good.

The moral from this perspective: all things are reflections of the ultimate: so play nice. . . . ultimately, you play with God.

(but, you know, people change, and I may find that I think differently in the future . . . like right after I post this . . . but: C'est la vie . . . or, Rrose Selavy)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by groverat
[b]Midwinter:

In an attempt to answer your question let me give you my perspective as a former LDS church member (and a very active and fervent one at that, for a time).

Inherent to any strong Christian belief (Mormonism, evangelical frameworks) is a very real and deep sense of exclusivity. That's all there is to it and you don't need to think of it

Further, because God exists (to them), it is impossible to think that there is not God, the only other choice is Satan. So if you're an Atheist you are simply under Satan's sway.

And Satan is evil, so that is why, in their minds, if you have not accepted Christ you have accepted Satan so you shouldn't have any moral objection to bashing people's skulls in.

So essentially what happens is that they do not understand a mindset that views the world has having moral truth without God, without someone laying down a specific rule. The fact that this can survive even though morality shifts around them like a fluid should tell you all you need to know about how it spreads and becomes the universal belief of Christians.

Groverat: Thanks much for this. I realize that you and Mark (apologies for being pissy last night!) are essentially saying the same thing (and this, as I have said, is something I understand), but your presentation of that God-centered perspective being unable to imagine a world without God and so it must insert the God even when it is inappropriate makes a lot of sense to me in terms of explaining the evolution of this argument.

I'm still interested in whether or not anyone besides DMZ has heard this argument preached or taught.

Thanks, guys.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by pfflam
Awesome post Fellows!!

You bring up a very important point.

I have been thinking a lot lately about my theology . . . I am a thiest . . . and that probably surpirises a lot of you, because I like to make fun of religion . . but an esential part of my idea is the primacy of trust.

The way that you talk about it is poetic and beautiful . . . and I agree with everything that you say

(--pardon me if I 'go off' below . ..Im just thinking as much as I can about this here--)

But what I mean by trust is this: I don't 'believe' in God . . . if I did I would know allready what to expect, I would have a foundation that is closed, I could not then have Faith.

I have, what I call, 'faith' . . . and what I mean by faith is merely an openness . . . I happen to think that all that is beyond my comprehension is as it should be: God is perfect, or at least I trust that it is.

Everything that is, must be an aspect of the universe(God) . . . a universe that is perfect: the Universe is thus innocent, --I trust that it is such, and I accept that innocence as a gift given to our understanding from the perfection of God . . . .

All of this gets tricky because there is no foundation in this for any sort of Moral system except openness . . . particularly openness for the being of others . .
Specially problematic because it means that EVERYTHING is perfect . . . everything is allready part of this happening called God, so no one thing is any better, ultimately, than any other.
Unless some things reflect the totality of all that is better than other things: sentient creatures, for instance . .

Which then means that there are two modes of being for us humans:
1- Being from the perspective of God: all is perfect, we have no choice about it, that the way it is -do what thou wilt, it doesn't much matter
And,
2- we have the world of our experience, where we can not help but make decisions and live as if free-will were a reality . . . for within our experience, it really is: The previous state of being, the perfection of God, becomes merely an article of faith . . . as it is . . . and, from within the world of experience, it might as well not have a referent (something that we can point to) since there is nothing that we can actually point to that is distinct from anything else (ie: is not part of the perfection) . .
So, in my perspective, you might as well be an athiest . . . it is close to the same thing . .. as long as you have faith and trust . . . .

All this means that should I want to align myself more with a 'spiritual' aspect, there is no God-given compulsion to do so, in terms of 'thou needst to be good'
If I do so, it is merely out of openess to that which is: it would not be God given -in the sense of rules- but would be God given in the sense that all is given by God.
any other motivation on my part would be selfish . . . (not that that would matter ultimately, just that selfish motivations misplace the guidance of all that is onto the self and away from the perfection of all that is
Which, again is no problem . . . there are no problems ultimately, except that if I see only selfish motivations then I don't allow seeing to see perfection).

Ultimately my theology is nihilistic . . . except that I have faith that all is good. . . it is nihilistic on porpose, any given meaning is not from the perspective of the ultimate

Love comes into this . . . I think that it is what bridges the held-in-faith perspective and the world of human decisions: because love is relationship and it is where we see reflection and therefor, the scope of the universe . . . it is primordial and immediate and can shake us up . . . and is all about allowing, as you Fellowship, say: letting the world be perfect . . . to me that is the ultimate love . . . and it too is faith . . .

I read somewhere that Kafka said something like 'you have to let the whole corpse go' . . . by which I understood: you have to give it all over, everything . . . that is trust to me . .. It was all given to me and all that I can do is allow it to be given.

that sort of sums up my current theological notion of meaninglessness: give it all over to God, everything . . truth, purpose, meaning and especially selfish demands to be 'saved' . . . that's not my domain . . . I'll just trust that all is good.

The moral from this perspective: all things are reflections of the ultimate: so play nice. . . . ultimately, you play with God.

(but, you know, people change, and I may find that I think differently in the future . . . like right after I post this . . . but: C'est la vie . . . or, Rrose Selavy)

pfflam I truly enjoy your post above. I think you make very good observations ;)

You see,, real love is to "allow" others to be. We have just enough time for ourselves just to "be" but the cool part is that when we allow others to be we sometimes readjust who "we are".

I truly believe that we gain a particular vicarious wisdom and understanding from OTHERS outside of ourselves. In this process of allowing others to be we evolve the substance and outlook of who "we are".

This is the fulfilling of the teaching: "In all that you do seek understanding"

Trust, Respect and Peace go hand in hand in hand..

Peace ;)

Fellowship

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by midwinter
"Well, if there is no God, then there's no reason to follow any laws. People would just kill one another and do whatever they want."

I'm interested in hearing from the religious folks on the board—particularly the Christians, and even more particularly, the evangelical Christians—about where young kids (18-ish) get these ideas about atheism. I'm honestly not interested in a debate about the merits of Theism/Atheism. I'm just curious about whether or not such ideas are articulated in sermons or sunday schools, or whether this is just the logic of 18 year-old LDS kids.

I can't discuss the LDS ethical response to the (usually postmodern) idea that there is no absolute morality "from above" because I am not an LDS member. I do know that from one of my evangelical christian friends who does quite a bit of ministry to LDS members that when people leave Mormonism, they usually fall pretty hard into what would be considered "loose living" because they see no purpose to morality and think that there are no standards out there. It sometimes seems that morality is an all or nothing proposition for members of the LDS church.

But I'd like to offer another possibility, that the student was playing devil's advocate. Compare the nihilism in his answer to the nihilism in an answer I gave eight years ago to my bioethics professor:

Prof: "would someone like to explain what a right is?"

Yevgeny (younger, with long hair, a beard, wearing tie die, and jeans with holes): "rights are nothing but arbitrary priviledges that society grants to an individual."

Prof gets irritated and asks if anyone else has an answer.

Now I don't actually belive my response, but I was being a pest in pointing out the arbitrary nature of rights under a post modern system of ethics. It is possible that your student was just trying to bring out the fact that if law only has its basis in ourselves, then we can legalize any kind of behaviour we want and behave however we want.

I mean, if morality is just culturally conditioned, then why can't we just change the culture and change what is or is not right? Rightness and wrongness only have relative meaning to the culture that you are in and you can't hope for any firm footing. If we the true sourse fo absolute morality then we can behave like devils, call ourselves angels and not be in error.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
I can't discuss the LDS ethical response to the (usually postmodern) idea that there is no absolute morality "from above" because I am not an LDS member. I do know that from one of my evangelical christian friends who does quite a bit of ministry to LDS members that when people leave Mormonism, they usually fall pretty hard into what would be considered "loose living" because they see no purpose to morality and think that there are no standards out there. It sometimes seems that morality is an all or nothing proposition for members of the LDS church.

But I'd like to offer another possibility, that the student was playing devil's advocate. Compare the nihilism in his answer to the nihilism in an answer I gave eight years ago to my bioethics professor:

Prof: "would someone like to explain what a right is?"

Yevgeny (younger, with long hair, a beard, wearing tie die, and jeans with holes): "rights are nothing but arbitrary priviledges that society grants to an individual."

Prof gets irritated and asks if anyone else has an answer.

Now I don't actually belive my response, but I was being a pest in pointing out the arbitrary nature of rights under a post modern rules of ethics. It is possible that your student was just trying to bring out the fact that if law only has its basis in ourselves, then we can legalize any kind of behaviour we want and behave however we want. Not if what you mean by 'ourselves' is relationship . . .
Your answer smacks of the NeoCon scare tactic that if we allow 'Liberal Ideas' to win out then we are only left with legalism, and a legalism based on the 'individual'

Post-modernism is not about 'individualism' . . that is so Modernists, so 1890s . . . Don't be afraid, the 'individual' is and always has been a fiction . . . Libralism, based on notions of rights, will ground itself in relationships and inter-subjectivity . . . society will not 'decay' because of 'Liberal Democracy' . . . have no fear. :)

and, oh yeah, jail Bush . . . yeay!!

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
I can't discuss the LDS ethical response to the (usually postmodern) idea that there is no absolute morality "from above" because I am not an LDS member. I do know that from one of my evangelical christian friends who does quite a bit of ministry to LDS members that when people leave Mormonism, they usually fall pretty hard into what would be considered "loose living" because they see no purpose to morality and think that there are no standards out there. It sometimes seems that morality is an all or nothing proposition for members of the LDS church.

That doesn't surprise me at all, and for a number of reasons. Members of the LDS church have an incredible array of pressures on them, all of which are backed by institutional (religious and social) mechanisms. No drink, smoke, drugs, sex. Get an education. No debt. Marry early (18-19 for girls; 21 for guys). No debt. Have as many kids as you can afford. No debt. Own your home. Work hard. Contribute to the community and church. Work among the poor. Tithe 10%. Etc. You can see how this would be difficult.

As for them falling hard...that makes sense, too, considering that much of LDS culture is about rejecting/resisting the evils of the world outside Utah. To move away from the church would amount to a failure on a broad range of levels.

But I'd like to offer another possibility, that the student was playing devil's advocate. [/B]

Nope. This kid loves him some Jesus and the Prophet Joseph Smith.

And Utahns aren't really much for sarcasm or irony. They're a pretty straight-forward folk who wouldn't see anything wrong with walking up to a person in a wheelchair and saying "Hey! I see you're in a wheelchair! Do you like it?"

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
Members of the LDS church have an incredible array of pressures on them, all of which are backed by institutional (religious and social) mechanisms. No drink, smoke, drugs, sex. Get an education. No debt. Marry early (18-19 for girls; 21 for guys). No debt. Have as many kids as you can afford. No debt. Own your home. Work hard. Contribute to the community and church. Work among the poor. Tithe 10%. Etc. You can see how this would be difficult.

First question, are you saying the hard part here is the pressure to do all of those things?

Second question, if not the pressure, are you saying those things are all hard to do?

Third, are you saying these are all bad things to do?

( NOTE: I am not an LDS. )

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
First question, are you saying the hard part here is the pressure to do all of those things?

Pressure to get married asap and have as many kids as you can. Pressure to work and go to school while earning minimum wage while supporting your stay at home wife and 4 kids. Pressure to buy a house and have a mortgage on a minimum wage income.

That's hard.


Second question, if not the pressure, are you saying those things are all hard to do?

If you're a teenager? Yes. That's what I'm talking about.

Third, are you saying these are all bad things to do?

I think that expecting an 18 year old girl and a 19 year old guy to do these things is insane.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
Pressure to get married asap and have as many kids as you can. Pressure to work and go to school while earning minimum wage while supporting your stay at home wife and 4 kids. Pressure to buy a house and have a mortgage on a minimum wage income.

That's hard.



If you're a teenager? Yes. That's what I'm talking about.



I think that expecting an 18 year old girl and a 19 year old guy to do these things is insane.

I would agree it is a lot of pressure to think about as a young person.

I would say that one must think about these things as goals over a lifetime...not necessarily all things that have to be doen "right now".

Aside from that some of the "pressures" (No drink, smoke, drugs, sex. Get an education.) are not unreasonable goals for young people to have. Others are perhaps more about goals across a lifetime (No debt. Have as many kids as you can afford. No debt. Own your home. Work hard. Contribute to the community and church. Work among the poor. Tithe 10%.)

P.S. I also notice you list "No Debt" 3-4 times. Are you trying to make a point about that in particular?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I would agree it is a lot of pressure to think about as a young person.

I would say that one must think about these things as goals over a lifetime...not necessarily all things that have to be doen "right now".

Aside from that some of the "pressures" (No drink, smoke, drugs, sex. Get an education.) are not unreasonable goals for young people to have. Others are perhaps more about goals across a lifetime (No debt. Have as many kids as you can afford. No debt. Own your home. Work hard. Contribute to the community and church. Work among the poor. Tithe 10%.)

P.S. I also notice you list "No Debt" 3-4 times. Are you trying to make a point about that in particular?

My point is that kids around here feel pressure to have all of that accomplished by the time they are 22 or 23. That is insane and unreasonable.

Is it a coincidence that Utah has high suicide rates, high bankruptcy rates, the birth rate of India, and a high divorce rate?

About debt: yes. This is crucial. I understand the impulse to pay for school and leave with minimal debt. That is a laudable goal for a normal kid anywhere outside of Utah. But in Utah, to be expected to pay for school yourself while having babies every other day while your wife stays at home while you change oil at the Jiffy Lube is a recipe for disaster. And once she's done having babies, she's not a marketable employee, since she dropped out of college at 18 to have babies. And when you get divorced in 4 years, she's an unwed mother on the dole trying to raise too many kids with no education and no job training.

And disaster is what they have.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
My point is that kids around here feel pressure to have all of that accomplished by the time they are 22 or 23. That is insane and unreasonable.

Some of those things, I'd agree.

Originally posted by midwinter
Is it a coincidence that Utah has high suicide rates, high bankruptcy rates, the birth rate of India, and a high divorce rate?

Possibly. Correlation doesn't always mean causation.

Originally posted by midwinter
About debt: yes. This is crucial. I understand the impulse to pay for school and leave with minimal debt. That is a laudable goal for a normal kid anywhere outside of Utah. But in Utah, to be expected to pay for school yourself while having babies every other day while your wife stays at home while you change oil at the Jiffy Lube is a recipe for disaster. And once she's done having babies, she's not a marketable employee, since she dropped out of college at 18 to have babies. And when you get divorced in 4 years, she's an unwed mother on the dole trying to raise too many kids with no education and no job training.

All of these pressures combined do seem rather burdensome. I won't deny that.

BTW...I'm not defending the LDS philosophy.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
All of these pressures combined do seem rather burdensome. I won't deny that.

To make matters worse, if you say "Hey, that's insane! I'll get married when I wanna! I'll take out student loans to pay for school!" the culture is designed to make you feel like a failure.

BTW...I'm not defending the LDS philosophy.

Why, you don't love the Prophet Joseph Smith? ;)

[Placebo]

Originally posted by trumptman
What is so special about us? We think we are and thus we must be? Nonsense.
Sorry to ruin the rant, but take a look around. Anywhere. That's what's so special about us; the branding of every nook and cranny of the earth to reflect our existence.

The real argument in all of this is your own happiness and outlook. Of course human emotion and thought is simply a subatomic interaction between particles; but no matter how much you believe in that view, it doesn't stop you from following your desires as a human being.

[jamac]

It was not christianity who introduced "God" but Judaism.
Jews introduced the 10 commandments and the believe in only one God. Or so it is written.
God is the extended arm of the educator as well as the dictator. Conveniently God can guide your flok anyway PEOPLE choose. God will even make them mutulate themselves, not eat bad meat, not steal and so on.

Maybe someone can explain what the difference is between Atheism and Godlessness? I am somewhat stumped with this.

An Atheist living by the morals of his society seems to adhere to gods laws aswell as the laws of the land as so many of judaio christian muslim morals have become secular laws.

Mohammed asks believers to kill or enslave everyone who is not muslim and impose their believe onto others. Iran still has laws exactly describing the size of stones used to stone people which should be big enough to only slowly kill the victim. One may get jailed if one uses a stone which is to big and kills too quickly. Now there is something that really makes sense.....

All god based religions seem to try and control sexual behavior which has caused believers to be guilt ridden whenever they feel pleasure. This expresses itself in genital mutulation like male and female circumsicion which is common and robs the victim of pleasure and satisfaction that their developing brains are prewired to experience, which can surely drive people insane and make them violent. Muslims will get sexual pleasure only in the afterlife thus suicide bombers do it to get laid for eternity. No this not pervers at all, it is what god wants. Please explain this to your students.

To all true believers I say this:
Eternity is extremely boring even if you receive an eternal blowjob.

[segovius]

Originally posted by jamac
Mohammed asks believers to kill or enslave everyone who is not muslim and impose their believe onto others.

Err...no, try again.

Actually, don't.